In short, I think the efforts to destabilize marriage and family are so broad reaching that saying “remove the effort has little meaning.” Remove what? Movies, TV show, magazines, books, social media, our schools, our jobs, DAMMIT! It is everywhere. It is almost like a false reality or something. Like we should all take some pill or something and wake up to the real world.

Only bleeping out the whole damn Matrix will “remove the effort to destabilize the family.” Can you be more specific? What CAN we do? What SHOULD we do? How do we force social change?

The point he was responding to in my interesting times post was my assertion that it takes constant effort to maintain our current level of familial destruction. While we absolutely should nurture families, in our current situation we wouldn’t need to nurture families to make them stronger. If we stop stomping on families, or (more realistically) stomp on them less frequently and/or with less force, the family will start to recover.

Previously I’ve compared modern feminism to a massive pumping operation. There is a tendency to assume that all feminists have done is removed a sort of patriarchal levee and allowed the water to flow to its natural level. This is the feminist narrative, but this conception is deeply flawed. While it is true that feminists have removed patriarchal guides built into previous custom and law, this was actually a very small part of the changes they have wrought. For example, in the US the Equal Pay Act of 1963 outlawed the practice of paying women less than men for the same work. Feminists celebrate this as a momentous achievement, crediting the law with lessening the earnings gap between women and men. But the reality is that even by the feminist’s own metric women’s relative earnings didn’t improve for 17 years after the act went into effect:

Feminists dynamited the patriarchal levee, only to find out that the water was already where it wanted to be. A gender neutral law had no effect. It took decades of massive affirmative action programs at all levels of our society to create the changes feminists have achieved beginning in 1981. These “improvements” aren’t permanent, because they aren’t natural. The moment we lessen the massive effort we are putting into affirmative action programs we will start to see a decay of feminist progress.

There is something similar going on with the destruction of the family. It is true that the first stages of familial destruction merely required destroying the cultural and legal structures that encouraged stable families. Once the churches and the government both agreed that divorce and out of wedlock births weren’t a big deal, the family naturally started falling apart. But in the West in general, and the US in specific* the churches and the courts have gone far beyond removing social and legal protections for the family. While the initial gutting of marriage tremendously weakened the position of husbands and fathers, it wasn’t enough. It took great effort to go to the next level. It wasn’t enough for churches to look the other way regarding divorce and out of wedlock births, and for the government to declare single mother families just as good as nuclear families. Marriage wasn’t merely gutted, it was replaced by a new family structure based on child support, a system which requires much more active government support to maintain than marriage does. Fathers had to be actively denigrated. Pastors had to start preaching that fathers are objects of derision, and the government needed to enact and continuously enforce laws hostile to fathers and families.

While it would take effort to actually preach against the destruction of families, no effort is required to stop preaching against intact families. The same is true for the government. It would take a legislative initiative to rewrite the laws of the family courts, but much could be gained simply by a reduction in the zeal by which the system is used to stamp out fatherhood. A less intensely anti father (or merely less industrious) family court judge could make a real difference by only imprisoning 50% as many fathers for failure to meet income quotas as he or his predecessor did in the past. Likewise, if 50% of pastors decided to skip the annual anti-father sermon on Father’s Day, this would make a real difference. Similarly, the Kendrick brothers could go from making an anti father movie every 2.5 years to one every 5 years. All that would be required would be for the anti family forces to do less of what they are doing today, and families would be strengthened.

We are at a stage of feminism and the destruction of the family where the pumps need to be kept running at full speed in order to maintain the status quo. For the family it is possible that after enough time has passed under our anti father regime that men’s unilateral commitment to marriage and fatherhood will eventually become less than it is today. Once that happens, preachers, family court judges, and sitcom writers won’t have to work as hard to ensure that families are broken up and fathers are despised. But that isn’t where we are today. Moreover, as feminism and the destruction of the family break down the machinery of our society, it will only become harder to maintain our current levels of anti father diligence.

*The US is far more progressive/effective than Europe is when it comes to destroying families, even though we have more weddings.

“Previously I’ve compared modern feminism to a massive pumping operation.”

A pumping operation that is entirely dependent upon state (government) coercion and aggression. As Mao remarked, the power of the state comes from the barrel of a gun. Men don’t fear women; it’s the government agents (other men) whom a woman can call to carry out “legitimate” acts of violence to enforce her will that men fear.

Once that gun barrel is removed, feminism will be relegated to nothing more than a collection of mentally ill bitches.

Sooner or later the state’s ability to keep the pump going will stop, by voluntary means or through natural causes forcing it to stop. The social Keynesian has had it boom; the bust is coming soon.

When it happens, there will be a lot of score-settling. As you’ve written before, Dalrock, a lot of good will is being squandered right now which will not be there on that day. Feminists and their cohorts will be lucky if they’re treated as well as the Parisian women who slept with German soldiers after Paris was liberated.

I’ve mentioned in comments before that unwinding significant parts of the damage isn’t as hard as it’s made out to be. The injuries can’t be undone, but the System itself is actually extremely fragile. Though since everyone that supports it is woefully dishonest, it’s not exactly the easiest thing to undo.

It’s much the same reason the SHTF-types really make way too much noise. Martial Law would last a weekend, as the entire power structure of every State can be eliminated in an night. There are benefits to Open Societies.

When it happens, there will be a lot of score-settling. As you’ve written before, Dalrock, a lot of good will is being squandered right now which will not be there on that day. Feminists and their cohorts will be lucky if they’re treated as well as the Parisian women who slept with German soldiers after Paris was liberated.

Given mankind’s well-documented inability to learn a damned thing from his own history, I would without a second thought wager a year’s salary that you are correct. Shallow and duplicitous vermin that they are, the feminists and their white knight enablers, with their backs against the wall and their world collapsing all around them, will likely pull out all of necessary tactical emotional stops to proffer an olive branch – one that will soon reveal itself to be made of crepe paper. The shallow phoniness of their reconciliation attempts being immediately recognized for what they are, and rejected accordingly, they will inevitably double down on what has led them to the point of destruction, guaranteeing that their ends will be painful and ugly.

The whole point of MGTOW was to remove the fuel for the “pumps” It also has the effect preserving the well being of the men involved.
Interesting couple of articles. The SHTF will be this year I think. That Hillary Clinton stunt the government pulled was the straw that broke the camels back. There is no hope or law and order and it is starting to sink in across the nation.

Think globally but act… locally. That is what I have been doing over at Bloomberg View for more than 3 years now, red pill after red pill. I have quite a substantial anti-feminist following over there. Check out some of my comments here….

….the thing is, you have to be very “fundamental” with the red pill commentary when you are dismantling the feminism with the ordinary public. You can’t rip it all down at once and expect to get any allies. The mob will just marginalize you. You have to start brick by brick, bottom up (tear out the foundation of feminism.) Do that with just logic, science, economics, and mathematics. I also add religion and law to my anti-feminist soup at Bloomberg. But stay calm and stay focused, never give up the fort. Never let them beat you down, always attack the feminism not your opponent. Eventually (and its taken me years), you’ll have everyone except the most militant feminists, hating feminism. The most militant will just try to ban you in stead of argue with you.

I also do this in my own family. My wife’s brother, his wife frivorced him for cash and prizes and to f-ck another man, and I have told everyone and anyone in my married family that until she REPENTS for her sin (which she’ll never do, Pride and Satan have a strong hold on her) she is “dead to me.” I wont go over to her house and see her kids if she is there. I will not help her (or her blood family) in anyway. I ONLY want to be in the lives of her children (my nephew and one of my favorite nieces.) But I will only attend events that focus on her kids provided I don’t have to sit anywhere near that woman. Initially my red pill shunning of her was met with conflict with my father-in-law. He said I was “too good a man” to be treating my ex-sister-in-law this way, and that we had to look past it. Said it was that movie 50 Shades of Grey that made her think she could act this way. I had a little talk with him, one on one, man to man, and he understands how badly he crossed the line with me. He and I do not speak about her anymore. Slowly but surely, I have gained allies in my family against this woman. Everyone is starting to shun her. And maybe (someday) someone ELSE will think TWICE before they do what she did if they KNOW that they run the risk of losing a great and helpful family member the way I was with her prior to her running to a judge and nuking her marriage unilaterally.

Act locally as I do. It has to start small, incrementally. It all started small in destroying the family and fatherly headship. We have to start small in repairing it.

Feminism thrives in societies that are abundant in resources. The upkeep for this toxic ideology is maintained by globalist elites. The only thing we can do is to starve the beast. Stop watching movies. Throw out your TV. Don’t send your kids to Universities and instead send them to technical institutes that teach them marketable skills without the leftist bs. The solution is simple because it doesn’t require you to do anything, but rather, STOP DOING certain things.

Don’t send your kids to Universities and instead send them to technical institutes that teach them marketable skills without the leftist bs.

I have only hired DeVry grads. They teach a very specific set of business and technical skills. I am not opposed to hiring people from other universities (I didn’t get my degree from DeVry) but its just worked out that way. They have what I need. I can use them.

“much could be gained simply by a reduction in the zeal by which the system is used to stamp out fatherhood.”

It all comes down to no-fault divorce and government marriage licenses. That’s the heart of the entire thing. Once you get the state out of the equation and allow people to decide themselves the terms for their marriages through private contracts, then all the rest follows. Not only does it remove no-fault divorce, but it removes divorce court, imputed income, the family court, child support system, alimony, and the threatpoint.

It’s why the same women who scream for the government to get out of their uterus will scream doubly loud at the idea of privatized marriage contracts. The state gun is no longer at their fingertips.

Chairman Mao(who Hillary dresses like) said power comes from the barrel of a gun. Pres. Frank Marshall Davis Jr. (look it up), Lorretta Lynchmob, the UN, want to take away your guns in the US, even though gun crimes are lower than the 90s. Look what happened when the Russian army gave up their guns to the commies in 1917, Nazi (National Socialist Worker’s Party) wouldn’t allow gun ownership. Fembots and white kinigits will have to fend for themselves from the Muslims and the “black lives matter” crowd when the time comes.

While the article starts out with the obligatory premise of ‘misogyny’, it is not as unfair as it could have been. It actually closes with a sentence of pure pwnage by Paul Elam against H. Bradford Wilcucks, likely to leave the unfamiliar reader with some decent food for thought about unnoticed double standards. .

Yet the actual ‘sphere didn’t even notice this article. I saw it when I was reading The Economist for entirely different reasons (Brexit, etc.)

And clueless baby boomer dads should stop pushing their bachelor degreed daughters to spend forever in school and wait to marry until they are 30, only to promptly drop out of the workforce 5 years later once her kids pop out.

The incentives have created such a mismatch between investment and allocation of human capital. Men, who generally work their whole lives, lose out to affirmative action women-filled positions at the top business schools and companies. Then, once the women has found herself a provider, she subsequently drops out. Ditto for the wasted training on the women in top internships. Ultimately, it only makes the men less desirable and successful in the long term.

Previously I’ve compared modern feminism to a massive pumping operation. We are at a stage of feminism and the destruction of the family where the pumps need to be kept running at full speed in order to maintain the status quo.

If you really want to quantify this even further on the macro scale, look no further than the US National debt.

Most government spending involves men paying and women receiving, but if we only spent as much as taxes collected that would be one thing.

But no. We spend much more than taxes collected. The surplus spending becomes the national debt, onto which interest also accrues (this interest is another component of spending).

Note that the national debt is not the only money spent on ‘feminism’, but as it represents spending above and beyond taxes collected, it can fairly be pinned exclusively to the worst excesses of ‘feminism’.

Forget 1950 or 1965. ‘Feminism’ would die if government spending (the ‘pump’) merely reverted to the same percentage of GDP as it was in 2007. Yes, even 2007’s levels would represent a major reduction in the pump’s force.

I think reading the Economist was the first issue. It’s a pure mouth piece of the globalist, so it’s useful to read to know what they’re thinking. But you’re not going to find a lot of good information there, in general.

I loathe to think about the effect an increasing number of childless post wall spinsters (who didn’t get to keep their cake after eating it) with too much time on their hands will have on the broader culture.

Something makes me think they won’t blame it on their choices.

I’m envisioning a doubling down of their efforts (more pumping), like the Soviets did by invading Eastern block countries even though they were teetering on the edge of collapse themselves. Cornered animal effect…

Parkinson’s Law

“The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.”

This is where the destructive forces have a significant advantage. Since they do a lot of their “ministry” through laws, they cast a wider net and have more teeth.

Take a catholic institution’s position on birth control for example. They preach against it, and members can listen, disregard, or leave without consequence. The state on the other hand passes a law requiring catholic institutions to provide birth control… and there are serious consequences for disobeying. (Yet, the masses are somehow convinced that it is the catholics who are facists seeking to control their lives, even though virtually every initiative backed by State force comes from the progressive side.)

Similar with marriage. A close friend of mine was just divorced by his wife (to alpha chase) after 15 years of marriage and four kids. He was deservedly regarded as one of the best husbands. This is a couple who stood up for us at our wedding, and went to a church every week that preached against frivilous divorce. Yet, guess who has the house, the money, and the monthly checks? Guess who has the mortgage, the debt, and the involuntary withholdings? Guess who has primary legal custody of the kids, and which one actually has them most of the time? Their pastor preached to them for 15 years, but the law had more teeth.

Blue pill professor is correct in the regard that this is tough to fight, and the balance of power is foremost among them.

Another thing that makes me shake my head is the campaign against deadbeat dads, and how bad people (both Churchians and progressives) are at math factored in with biological realities.

Say you have 10 twenty-something men and 10 twenty-something women living on an island for the next six months. Consider the following two variables and equations:

1. Say we made headway at the deadbeat dad problem, and nine of the men will refuse to impregnate someone. That leaves one man who will knock someone up. Yet their are five women who want (or at the least do not avoid) to be knocked up. How many can be knocked up during the six months on the island? Five.

2. Conversely, let’s say that all 10 men were careless or willing, and would knock up as many women as they could. Yet, only one woman would let that happen. How many women get pregant? Jut one.

Yet, we are focusing all our efforts on the male side of the equation, even though it does not change the problem. Even if we reduced the number of potential deadbeat dads by 90%, the only thing that would change is the proportion. In a year, a woman can get pregant once, but a man can knock up dozens (even hundreds) of women. We focus on men in domestic violence because they have the power, we focus on men in rape crimes because they have the power… i fail to see how focusing on the woman because she has the power on pregnancy is so sexiss’.

But it’s a simple equation. Pandering to women, even if it makes the problem worse, helps the statists, and that is all the math they do. All their states reasons are just noble sounding covers for their real agenda of buying votes to gain power.

I was again reminded recently what a behemoth the Child Support Agency is, here in Australia. Apparently I’d fallen about $97 into arrears. So I received the obligatory letter advising they they were to garnishee my wages. Of course, between the date of the letter and the date of my next pay, I’d already made a payment that would put me in credit again. But of course the bureaucracy just had to give me a great day with their ridiculous and unnecessary letter. It wasn’t as if my 18 and 16 year olds were going to starve over $97. I was reminded that I am a deadbeat dad. And regardless of my ex-wife’s being remarried, they both working and having substantial assets, she has no accountability in the Child Support scenario, but I have all the accountability. I wondered whether “they” might have some much bigger fish than me to fry. But then again maybe they don’t.

Feminism contained the seeds of it’s own destruction from the day it was birthed.

At the most basic level, as women are the ones with wombs, they have value simply by existing. Men’s value is determined by what they ‘do’. In this sense only women are true human ‘beings’, whilst men are human ‘doings’.

This may seem harsh from a male perspective but in reality, there is an exquisite balance in this, for whilst women’s value is set at the moment of conception (their beauty being their measure of value), a mans’ value is his to define.

So men must build value by ‘doing’. But feminism does everything it can to dis-incentivise that ‘doing’. And then everything starts to fall apart. As I wrote a couple of years ago;
“Feminism is already a dead woman walking. All feminism has is shaming language and the State (ironically, ultimately other men) to keep men to the feminist line.

But now, increasingly, the shaming doesn’t work. And men are disengaging from society in general to avoid entanglements with the state; if you don’t get married, you can’t be divorced, if you don’t co-habit you can’t have half your stuff appropriated, if you don’t have children, you can’t be on the hook for child support, if you don’t enter the corporate world you can’t be be accused of ‘harassment’ and if you don’t date you drastically reduce your chance of a false rape accusation.

These are genuine threat points for men in the modern world that didn’t exist before feminism. It speaks to the feeble minds of feminists that they would think that men will simply carry on as they did when these threats did not exist. For the last 50 years men (mostly) still did. But that’s over now.

So men are doing what they have always done: survey their environment, understand it, and behave rationally according to it. Which means, increasingly, living their lives without regard to what women want. This does not mean living without sex, relationships or female company. Just that the investment men make in all these areas is being dramatically reduced.

As feminism reduces the value of women (in men’s eyes), so men are reducing the amount of time, effort, attention and money they are willing to spend for the declining benefits modern women now bring to their lives.

But the real news is that the true cost of feminism, first born by men, and then children, is now being passed on to women. Record numbers of women are living alone, record numbers of women are childless, record numbers are on psychiatric medication, record numbers are facing a life-time of wage slavery in grinding jobs that they can never leave. And still feminism spins these outcomes as the conscious choices of these women and as ’empowering’.

And yet, women’s self-reported happiness, across all classes, all races, all demographics is lower than ever since records began 50 years ago. Tellingly, for the first time ever, their happiness is also now lower than men’s.

But you do not need to read ‘The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness’ to know this. Just talk to the increasing number of 30 and 40 year old childless spinsters one on one – not in a group – to get the REAL story. The REAL effect of feminism in the REAL world. These women don’t give two hoots about feminism, they are just wondering where all the good husbands, hell, ANY decent man, went.

Mostly, disgusted with what feminism has done to women, he walked away.

For the truth is that men don’t want to fight women, it goes against the core of what it means to be a man. But feminism thrust men into a fight that they neither started nor wanted. To the point that feminists are reduced to crowing about ‘winning’ battles that men never turned up for.

And even now, as feminism pushes and pushes and pushes to ever more absurd levels, as ever more restrictions are placed on normal masculine behavior, ever more insane definitions of ‘rape’, ‘assault’, and ‘aggression’ are drafted into law in increasingly desperate attempts to somehow, anyhow, cast women as perpetual victims – even now – men are still refusing to be drawn into a real battle.

That’s how deeply men do not want to fight women.

The sound of the final battle between the sexes will not be heard in the streets or legislatures. It will not be televised or reported. There will be no flags hoisted or victory parades. Because it is already in progress. It is happening all around us in plain sight, for those with the eyes to see it.

And men are deploying the most devastating weapon of all – indifference. In this final battle who cares least wins.”

Whilst is does no harm to actively fight feminism (I spread the red pill wherever I can), ultimately all we as men need to do is live our lives true to traditional values (and I accept that in today’s world this can be no easy task) and importantly do no more – do nothing to feed the beast. It will be women, not men, who will act to bring the whole feminist edifice down, it will be women, exhausted, broke, barren and miserable who will fire the kill shot. And it has to be this way, for feminism to be truly de-legitamised in the eyes of the masses.

Our power as men in this fight is to limit our ‘doing’. And fortunately feminists are doing everything they can to ensure that’s what we do.

Thanks Dalrock, it is a great honor for me to be profiled in one of your posts. I am a results oriented, solution finding kind of guy and this has always bothered me a lot. On the manosphere we have done a very good job pointing out the problem but what is the solution?

When I posted that thread on Reddit: “The MGTOW Manifesto: Our Demands For Ending the Marriage Strike” I thought we could have a discussion but the Red Pill guys seem to be saying: No solution, just bang sluts.

1. Stop stomping on families, or (more realistically) stomp on them less frequently and/or with less force, the family will start to recover…..anti family forces to do less of what they are doing today, and families would be strengthened.

2. Specifically: decrease the number of fathers jailed for failure to meet income quotas or 50% of pastors skip the annual anti-father sermon on Father’s Day.

These are actionable, and achievable goals and objectives. However, I respectfully disagree that this is all that needs to be done to reverse the decline of fatherhood and families. These concepts may slow the decline, but they are not going to reverse it. I think we are much further gone than you realize. There are MANY pumps running and very, very little water is feeding into the reservoir. Turning down a few of those pumps is not going to be enough IMHO. We need to smash quite a few of them to smithereens before we would have any effect.

@Feereeker: You speak the truth. The anaology is not the female French Nazi bangers of WWII but more like the French revolution. Like Earl Turner wrote, “Someday we will have a free press again in this country but a lot of editors throats are going to have to be cut first.”

@looking glass: “unwinding significant parts of the damage isn’t as hard as it’s made out to be. The injuries can’t be undone, but the System itself is actually extremely fragile. Though since everyone that supports it is woefully dishonest, it’s not exactly the easiest thing to undo.”

Care to unpack this mish mash? Is it not easy to do or “isn’t as hard as it’s made out to be.” You seem to have changed your mind about he difficulty as you write and think about it.

@Scott: I am not sure that is one of the pumps draining the marriage and masculine reservoir. It appears to portray single moms as buffoons, not models to emulate. Perhaps we need more movies like that?

@IBB: Think globally, act locally. It is the little things added together that makes a difference. Red Pills and certainly MGTOWS want to avoid women but I think it would be a far more effective strategy (in terms of social change) to engage women and fight feminism openly.

I’d already made a payment that would put me in credit again. But of course the bureaucracy just had to give me a great day with their ridiculous and unnecessary letter. It wasn’t as if my 18 and 16 year olds were going to starve over $97. I was reminded that I am a deadbeat dad. And regardless of my ex-wife’s being remarried, they both working and having substantial assets, she has no accountability in the Child Support scenario, but I have all the accountability. I wondered whether “they” might have some much bigger fish than me to fry. But then again maybe they don’t.

I really think the solution in cases like yours, where your kids are teenagers, is to set up bank accounts for them and have the child support money go into their bank accounts each month. That way Mom’s conniving, filthy, greedy, thieving mitts are kept off of it and the kids themselves will know that Dad is providing for them.

The “System” is fragile: it’s actually built up of an interconnected set of laws that all have to operate in tandem to be made to work. Then a group has to enforce them. This is why the point of view that says it’s not possible to solve the problem (or is nearly insurmountable) is just defeatist.

The difficulty comes in the fact we’re not dealing with anything close to “honest” actors. You can’t win on the “law” or “rights”. The approach that can work is to cause a “Red on Red” situation. (Ask yourself: even before the Dallas Attack, what happened to the Orlando Nightclub shooting in the news? It barely lasted a week in the news. Why?) Since the System is fragile, forcing the main groups within the system to fight each other will cause one side to win, completely upsetting the apple cart.

That’s the calmer approach. If we do get into SHTF territory, it’s a lot faster. But I think you can understand how that approach would work.

I see this mentioned here a fair bit, but I don’t see the proof. Children being involved give the State sufficient power to enforce the same thing. Common law marriage also has a way of taking effect in most places, so merely avoiding getting a marriage certificate seems like very little protection, if any at all.

I also recall reading a few stories where live-in arrangements ended up with the equivalent of alimony, so that may not help there either.

Note that the reply I took this from went farther on noting disengagement, but this point is commonly repeated with those who push not getting a state marriage license.

I find huge flaws with the idea of complete disengagement, though I see why many go that route. I don’t think it is quite as viable as many claim though. Many men will never be productive forging their own road alone.

I really think the solution in cases like yours, where your kids are teenagers, is to set up bank accounts for them and have the child support money go into their bank accounts each month.

Indeed. At least the kids can see where the money goes, monitor if the mother is misappropriating it, and learn the truth as they enter adulthood (the male children may get to see exactly why they should not reproduce).

The system seems to include the whole thing (including YouTube videos) when you put the link all by itself on a line. Add some text and only the link seems to show up.

Dalrock has addressed the marriage strike claim and I don’t think MGTOWs can end the strike as they are not the ones striking marriage, it is young women in their peak sexual years who are. This manifesto would not solve that.

I also doubt MGTOWs are organized enough to comply no matter what is changed. Many are as bad as the feminists (the PUAs you note). They may also end up getting hung form the lightposts, especially if they keep up their “bang whatever they can” approach when the tide does change.

They are a natural reaction to the situation, but not a thing to necessarily promote. Stop promoting the bad and natural forces will push some things closer to rationality, as Dalrock notes.

Another huge part of this pumping operation that needs to be addressed is the effort it takes to make alpha cads higher-status than provider betas. In how much of human history, or in places outside the West today, is an $80K accountant consistently getting outcompeted in the dating market by a $25K waiter? How much gov $ and elite propaganda does it take to make that happen?

Among other things, it takes huge expenditures in welfare/subsidized healthcare to finance a comfortable lifestyle for cads and the comforting safety net for their women, cheap credit-card debt and money printing which punishes providers’ efforts at saving, a post-Protestant culture of conspicuous consumption where swag beats thrift, and media glorification of slacker-lifestyle alpha jobs like bartending and DJing which are just as overwhelmingly male as the productive beta STEM jobs constantly belittled by feminist bean counters.

When the Women are feral, it’s the native result. Women aren’t long-term planners, so they’ll never think in terms as you put it. All that matters is that EBT exists and they won’t starve.

Granted, it doesn’t help that sluts can’t shamed, but we see the exact same actions by Women in a lot of tribal societies. AF/BB is natural to Women. That doesn’t change. Keeping it under control is a necessary part of “Civilization”.

Indeed. At least the kids can see where the money goes, monitor if the mother is misappropriating it, and learn the truth as they enter adulthood

This is exactly why the CS machine will NEVER allow such an equitable and common-sense solution to be implemented. Obstructing Mom’s attempts to get her thieving hands on her kids’ money makes the very idea a non-starter.

This is exactly why the CS machine will NEVER allow such an equitable and common-sense solution to be implemented. Obstructing Mom’s attempts to get her thieving hands on her kids’ money makes the very idea a non-starter.

That is certainly the intention. But I do think that if the kids are 16+, there are not yet the legal mechanisms to cover up the evil, and the father can in fact deposit the money into an account that the children can at least monitor the balance of. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

If the age 16+ children are female, at least this can be the source of mother-daughter fighting over money. I do think this will be a major type of fight in the near future – too many adult daughters figuring out that mommy did not give her the money she could have gotten from CS, particularly since CS lasts until the child is 21 or something. Remember that when resources become scarce, women do turn on each other ruthlessly.

If the children are male, this is a valuable education for his future.

If you want to see what happens when a country runs out of other people’s money, watch Venezuela.

Venezuela collapsed astonishingly quickly, partly because its economy was too heavily dependent on petroleum revenues, and partly because they were much further down the Socialist road than the US is. Obviously, the US is a vastly different country, but Venezuela still provides a useful example.

Here’s an interesting question. Now that the violence has reached white Leftie enclaves, how will the Left react?

With brutal force. Lefties are all “give peace a chance!” until it gets too close to home. Then they’ll force the Police to be out in force to deal with the problem. Leftists are reliable at being complete hypocrites.

“It all comes down to no-fault divorce and government marriage licenses. That’s the heart of the entire thing. Once you get the state out of the equation and allow people to decide themselves the terms for their marriages through private contracts, then all the rest follows. Not only does it remove no-fault divorce, but it removes divorce court, imputed income, the family court, child support system, alimony, and the threatpoint.”

That is my conclusion as well. A state issued marriage license is not synonymous with Godly instituted marriage. I see a conflation of the concepts but they are indeed separate.

A state issued marriage license should be based on a standard and ideally would mirror God’s design of marriage however, as we’ve witnessed in the US, a now arbitrary definition of what constitutes marriage exists and how divorce is conducted.

I think that the influence of modern feminism on the average woman is beginning to wane. I know that its effects are everywhere and that people are unaware of just how insidious it is, but the effort to keep it going is enormous. The effects of out of wedlock births are all around us. Everyone can see it even if they refrain from openly holding people accountable for what is happening to society as a result. I think there is already a shift underway towards a more traditional attitude regarding the successful raising of a family. You just can’t see the effects of it yet.

“Once an exception to demographic decline, our country may be falling into the dismal pattern that is now common in other high-income countries, notably in East Asia and Europe. Europe’s demographic crisis is one reason European Union officials, particularly in Germany, opened the floodgates to mass migration from the Middle East and other unstable areas. In many parts of Europe, more people are dying than are being born.

Now America may be joining the downward fertility spiral. Since the recession, the number of new children has plummeted, and it’s dropped the most precipitously for new mothers.”

“I am a results oriented, solution finding kind of guy and this has always bothered me a lot. On the manosphere we have done a very good job pointing out the problem but what is the solution?”

As a society, culture and civilization we’re well past the point of no return. Things will not turn around voluntarily. If change comes it will be a natural correction forcing change to occur and it will be fought and resisted every step of the way.

It’s a challenge to craft any kind of general solution because every man’s situation is different. The best general concept I can think of is for men to limit as much as possible any support they give to the machine. We starve the beast while living our lives as we see fit; that’s the solution.

If they can legally find a way to pay less taxes, do it. If they can find a way to live without owning a home or property or own them in places where taxes are low, do it. If they can make it earning minimal amount as a self-employed person rather than make bank for a progressive-funding corporation….you get the idea. Men can get married and have kids in spite of the risks, but they should know before they do that those are the two biggest means by which we can be forced to feed the machine.

If we can’t figure out an exact solution we can at least start by not perpetuating the problem.

Fiddlesticks says:
July 10, 2016 at 5:27 pm
“Another huge part of this pumping operation that needs to be addressed is the effort it takes to make alpha cads higher-status than provider betas. In how much of human history, or in places outside the West today, is an $80K accountant consistently getting outcompeted in the dating market by a $25K waiter? How much gov $ and elite propaganda does it take to make that happen?

Among other things, it takes huge expenditures in welfare/subsidized healthcare to finance a comfortable lifestyle for cads and the comforting safety net for their women, cheap credit-card debt and money printing which punishes providers’ efforts at saving, a post-Protestant culture of conspicuous consumption where swag beats thrift, and media glorification of slacker-lifestyle alpha jobs like bartending and DJing which are just as overwhelmingly male as the productive beta STEM jobs constantly belittled by feminist bean counters”.

Too true, Fiddlesticks. So too, the exorbitant amounts of money showered on anyone who plays with balls as opposed to those with STEM / Medical / Education degrees. This may be an indicator of a particular baller’s market value, but how much is enough? Is David Beckham, Shaquille O’Neall or Michael Jordan seriously worth tens of millions of dollars? Or is it simply a result of the post-Protestant culture having accepted too many heresies so that everyone has a bad set of values?

“While it would take effort to actually preach against the destruction of families, no effort is required to stop preaching against intact families. The same is true for the government. It would take a legislative initiative to rewrite the laws of the family courts, but much could be gained simply by a reduction in the zeal by which the system is used to stamp out fatherhood. A less intensely anti father (or merely less industrious) family court judge could make a real difference by only imprisoning 50% as many fathers for failure to meet income quotas as he or his predecessor did in the past. Likewise, if 50% of pastors decided to skip the annual anti-father sermon on Father’s Day, this would make a real difference. Similarly, the Kendrick brothers could go from making an anti father movie every 2.5 years to one every 5 years. All that would be required would be for the anti family forces to do less of what they are doing today, and families would be strengthened.”

C’mon, Dalrock. You seem to be pretending that your cute grammatical device (“No effort required! Just do less!”) is a legitimate goal.

In reality, “family” courts gain legitimacy and a bigger budget by beating down dads, and would lose both by slacking off. In reality, pastors fill the pews by beating down dads and lionizing women; if they slacked off, they’d have to find another way to pay their own salary the mortgage. In reality, the Kendrick brothers earn a lot of money and religious legitimacy by beating down dads and lionizing women; if they slacked off, they might have to get real jobs.

The momentum is real. You claim there is friction, and that may be true, but interested parties (i.e, those with a moral and/or financial interest in maintaining the status quo) are keeping this ball rolling. A cute “just do less!” message will not motivate them to leave their comfort zone.

Blue Pill Professor asked a serious question. If you didn’t have a serious answer, you shouldn’t have bothered.

“In how much of human history, or in places outside the West today, is an $80K accountant consistently getting outcompeted in the dating market by a $25K waiter? How much gov $ and elite propaganda does it take to make that happen?”

“Chávez was either admired as a progressive visionary who gave voice to the poor or dismissed as just another third-world buffoon. Reality was more complex than that: Chávez pioneered a new playbook for how to bask in global admiration even as he hollowed out democratic institutions on the sly.

Step one was his deft manipulation of elections. Chávez realized early that, as long as he kept holding and winning elections, nobody outside Venezuela would ask too many questions about what he did with his power in the interim. And so he mastered the paradoxical art of destroying democracy one election at a time.

Venezuelans have gone to the polls 19 times since 1999, and chavismo has won 17 of those votes. The regime has won by stacking the election authorities with malleable pro-government officials, by enmeshing its supporters in a web of lavishly petro-financed patronage and by intimidating and marginalizing its opponents. It worked for more than a decade — until it didn’t work anymore.”

Spike – “Too true, Fiddlesticks. So too, the exorbitant amounts of money showered on anyone who plays with balls as opposed to those with STEM / Medical / Education degrees. This may be an indicator of a particular baller’s market value, but how much is enough? Is David Beckham, Shaquille O’Neall or Michael Jordan seriously worth tens of millions of dollars? Or is it simply a result of the post-Protestant culture having accepted too many heresies so that everyone has a bad set of values?”

I have always felt that the ridiculous wages that athletes earn is more to do with the ego of the owners. George Steinbrenner and Jerry Jones being the prime examples. These guys must always win.

C’mon, Dalrock. You seem to be pretending that your cute grammatical device (“No effort required! Just do less!”) is a legitimate goal.

It isn’t a goal. It is a statement of fact. Maintaining the current level of family destruction takes constant effort (and money). Entropy is a real risk to this system. This is compounded by the fact that a society with a broken family structure will tend to fall apart around the edges.

In reality, “family” courts gain legitimacy and a bigger budget by beating down dads, and would lose both by slacking off. In reality, pastors fill the pews by beating down dads and lionizing women; if they slacked off, they’d have to find another way to pay their own salary the mortgage. In reality, the Kendrick brothers earn a lot of money and religious legitimacy by beating down dads and lionizing women; if they slacked off, they might have to get real jobs.

Indeed, but I disagree with you on the nature of the motivation for pastors. I don’t think it is financial, or at least mostly financial. I think it is approval and prestige. But at any rate these things all tend to go together. Taking Driscoll as an example, what motivated him to stomp the men in is congregation (and even the patriarchs in the OT) to make himself into the only real man in the room? Clearly prestige and approval from the women in the congregation was a huge motivator, but he didn’t shy away from the money either.

But the point is that for the system to keep working pastors have to stay on message and continuously remind their congregations that married fathers are losers at best, and a threat to their family’s wellbeing at worst. As you point out, so long as this continues to be rewarded there will be no shortage of pastors delighted to sell this message. But will it be rewarded forever? Will this forever be the way a pastor gets ahead? Just because something has worked for a few decades doesn’t mean it will work forever. There are counter forces at work here. The more rare married fathers become, the more absurd a pastor (or movie) focused on denigrating them will look. Right now the ladies in the pews are more delighted to watch the strong man of the church smash the boring betas than they are afraid of the strong man scaring their beta provider prospects away before they can get him on the hook. Are you sure that will be the case forever? Moreover, attacking families may be effective in filling the pews in the short to medium term, but if the children don’t go on to 1) Raise their own family. and 2) Bring them to church, the churches will shrink. We already see a great deal of hand wringing about this very problem.

The momentum is real. You claim there is friction, and that may be true, but interested parties (i.e, those with a moral and/or financial interest in maintaining the status quo) are keeping this ball rolling. A cute “just do less!” message will not motivate them to leave their comfort zone.

Blue Pill Professor asked a serious question. If you didn’t have a serious answer, you shouldn’t have bothered.

Yes, the momentum is real. I’ve written at length about these things. But they require a specific set of circumstances to work, circumstances which destroying the family undermines. I’m not being cute, I’m explaining my point. The irony is you are accusing me of offering naive “solutions”, while chiding me for not offering an easy quick fix. Easy quick fixes don’t exist, and only a naive person who didn’t understand the magnitude of the problem would demand them.

I found this on City-Data. A woman wanting to know if Portland was a good place for her and her male “partner” to move.

“We are a straight unmarried couple in a committed LTR. We don’t (and won’t) have children. … they’re pretty adorable, just not for us. … He is well educated with multiple BAs in the sciences. I have an AA in the social sciences. … I do not work and would probably not be looking for work. We are … vegans. … atheists … uber liberals (Sanders supporters) … We want to legally use marijuana recreationally …”

She also indicated that her “partner” earned $120k a year. He’s in his 40s. She in her 30s. They live in D.C. (This was later edited out.)

I posted a reply, calling her a kept woman who wanted to sponge off her unmarried “partner,” so she could watch TV and surf social media all day, smoking pot, while her “partner” funded her lifestyle.

I guess I hit a nerve, because she must have complained. My post was removed as a “personal attack,” though she posted anonymously, and I only repeated what she said (albeit in stark, plain language). I guess she wants a Safe Space from critical comments.

This paradigm reminds me of the Space program under Bush of “Faster, Better Cheaper.” They found after several years of trying this approach that it is simply not possible. You can have 2 of the 3 at best, but never all 3.

Similarly to the space solution, with social change you can have easy, quick, or effective but you only get 2 out of 3.

This leaves 3 possible combinations to the solution:

Quick and Effective= SHTF and social reboot. The problem is it is not easy because the streets run red with blood for a short time.

Quick and Easy= Slow death or what we are doing now. The problem is nothing significant changes because the changes are superficial and easy, and not at all effective. For example, we complain on anonymous blogs about the system, we bring awareness, but we do nothing effective against it.

Effective and Easy= Slow change occurring over several generations. This is the approach the feminists took as well as the early Christians in accomplishing the great commission and offers the opportunity for long-lasting social change. The problem is it is not quick. We, our children and our grandchildren will all be dead before we notice any improvement.

What’s sad is that women can’t see past the air they breath. I see Christian girls that can embrace pro-male messages on facebook but have no desire to learn to be more feminine. They are quick to throw out ultimatums of “my future husband better accept this annoying thing I do, lol”; and keep laughing until 30 slaps into them. Women suck as self improvement or self observation but if at least there was one mainstream Christian female voice that pushed the message of “you can change your behavior, being ‘true to yourself’ is a self limiting handicap.”

I posted a reply, calling her a kept woman who wanted to sponge off her unmarried “partner,” so she could watch TV and surf social media all day, smoking pot, while her “partner” funded her lifestyle.

I lolled:

We don’t particularly like guns and are hoping that open carry is less prominent in the city than in eastern OR for example. The Malheur incident nearly turned us off OR. He has never lived anywhere without fairly strict gun control.

As Fifth Horseman used to point out (what ever happened to that guy, anyway?) it is good and fitting that weak men bear all the social and financial costs of feminism. That is exactly what is happening here. Pathetic and weak cucks who faint at the sight of a handgun (fuck’n lol) get to fund the excesses of disrespectful skank-ho princesses who have settled. What is wrong with this? Nothing. It is the natural order of things. If anything, we can be grateful that she won’t be popping out some future white-trash welfare cases that taxes will have to support.

As for getting people to troll the forum, well, why bother? People like this can’t be helped. They’re genetic dead ends, and that’s best for all of us. Let all the cucks and feminists island themselves in hipster neighborhoods, that they won’t continue to burden decent people through future generations.

“Authorities now think that on New Year’s Eve, more than 1,200 women were sexually assaulted in various German cities, including more than 600 in Cologne and about 400 in Hamburg. More than 2,000 men were allegedly involved, and 120 suspects — about half of them foreign nationals who had only recently arrived in Germany — have been identified.
…
Halina Wawzyniak, a lawmaker from the Left Party, told The Washington Post last week that immigration issues and sexual-assault cases should not be linked, as refugees could end up facing a ‘double punishment’ by being deported. ‘The debate used to be about “no means no” — now all that is being talked about in social networks are foreigners again’, she said.”

Women suck as self improvement or self observation but if at least there was one mainstream Christian female voice that pushed the message of “you can change your behavior, being ‘true to yourself’ is a self limiting handicap.”

Such a Christian female voice wouldn’t be “mainstream”; it would be radical – and rejected. Women would shriek and howl in wounded indignation at the very idea that they should have to change themselves or put any kind of effort into attracting and keeping a husband. Churchian white knight male “leaders” of the Driscoll/Chandler/Ken Alexander variety would also vehemently denounce such a female voice as “judgmental,” “hateful,” or “misogynistic.”

“All that would be required would be for the anti family forces to do less of what they are doing today, and families would be strengthened.”…..

“For the family it is possible that after enough time has passed under our anti father regime that men’s unilateral commitment to marriage and fatherhood will eventually become less than it is today.”

I agree with the earlier commenter. It is too late. Just way too late for any of this thinking.
Reality keeps getting in our way of any light and respite.

While I like the pumping station analogy for what it says, I just cannot foresee any “commercial break” in action for pump machine maintenance. Nobody is going to call “time out” from the incessant, convenient bashing of boys, single men, fathers and husbands.

Why would it ever occur to feminists, pastors, politicians, sitcom and movie writers to let up on the gas of such fruitful endeavor? From a pastor’s perspective alone, it works! It fills their church pews and coffers, and sells books, and not just over the short term, or by a little bit.

Would it be kindness? Would it be “coming to Jesus”?
The answer is, it would never, and will never, occur to them, despite the truth that families desperately need fathers and havoc wreaked by single parent families.

You have to remember, when it comes to run-of-the mill working men out there, young and old, husbands, fathers, single men – society couldn’t possibly ask for better scapegoats and patsies.
We are perpetually late in realizing how perfectly we fit that pathetic role for them.

We are a winless team, down 0-35 in the 4th quarter. They are at our 1 year line with 00:10 seconds to play, and here we are – is the best we can hope for is that they we finally be nice to us? Display some semblance of sportsmanship and mercy and call a time out so that we can get some water, catch our breaths and recover?

No, at this point, men just want the clock to run out.

But I’ll tell you what they will do. They’re going to score another touchdown and then go for a 2 point conversion for maximum humiliation. 0-43 final score. It’s all in the script. Didn’t you read it?

Here radio show has held women to task for many things discussed here. Not all the items of course and I only here it sometimes and it is only 2 minutes or so, but it does address female idiocy.

The drop-down menu on her homepage “Wisdom for Women” contains not Bible verses addressed specifically to women or to believers in general on how to lead a Christ-like life, but simply a link to various radio stations, presumably those that broadcast HER show. Not an encouraging sign.

Women suck as self improvement or self observation but if at least there was one mainstream Christian female voice that pushed the message of “you can change your behavior, being ‘true to yourself’ is a self limiting handicap.”

We already know what happens, right? Married woman advises other married women not to whine about housework but to just get it done in a cheerful fashion, feminista flying monkies swarm.

I was talking about this to a friend of mine today. I’m sure Dalrock has noted this, but I do truly believe focusing the effort on reducing the number of players makes it worse. We tend to focus our attention on making the men pay up, social programs, and making single mothers into heroines. Not only do you have fewer (and lower quality) men siring children out of wedlock, you increase the number of women willing to have illegitimate children do to the incentives. “so if he knocks me up, i’ll get money? Why wait for Mr. Right!”

I saw 300 many years ago. I watched it again, then watched (for the first time) the sequel, 300: Rise of an Empire. Wow, what a difference — and not for the best.

300 celebrated masculine virtues and valor. The sequel had some of that, but also grafted onto it so much Grrrl Power. Persians and Spartans both had a kick-ass female warrior.

The first film made much ado about the Spartan phalanx. A hunchback could not be a Spartan soldier, because he could not hold his shield in phalanx formation. In the sequel, the Spartan Queen Gorgo leads men into battle. The men all have swords and shields — the Queen only has a sword. She leads the charge, killing Persians left and right.

I know Artemesia and Gorgo are historical figures. But Artemesia was an admiral — no historical record that she was a kick-ass warrior who personally killed dozens of men in battle. No record that Queen Gorgo ever fought in battle. The sequel really stretched history, turning these queens into kick-ass warriors who could personally fight hordes of male warriors.

You keep providing excellent material for the AMBEC page! I wrote, “Dalrock continues to write about men and the church as if he cut his teeth on AMBEC. Dalrock wrote: (and for emphasis I placed some of his words in ALL CAPS)…

She may not be perfect (and probably is not), I just recall several of the short shows noting that women needed to stop doing the things they are chastised here for doing. I didn’t keep notes, so I can’t note them all and only found the site via Google. I have listened to several dozen shows, so that may not be enough to know for sure, but it is more than any other preacher I have heard, male or female.

“Moreover, attacking families may be effective in filling the pews in the short to medium term, but if the children don’t go on to 1) Raise their own family. and 2) Bring them to church, the churches will shrink. We already see a great deal of hand wringing about this very problem.”

Funny that every other month, the church my wife and I are attending holds a series of courses on evangelism but afaik, there is nothing at all in courses about building up strong Christian families, how boys can learn to be men/husbands and how girls can learn to be women/wives. At the same time, there is some wringing of hands and twiddling of thumbs over the paucity of eligible young men and the abundance of unmarried single women in the church.

Dalrock: “The irony is you are accusing me of offering naive “solutions”, while chiding me for not offering an easy quick fix. Easy quick fixes don’t exist, and only a naive person who didn’t understand the magnitude of the problem would demand them.”

Geez. Quote the part where I “demanded” anything, much less a “quick fix”. All I did was “chide” you for not providing a serious answer to BPP’s question, which was this:

Can you be more specific? What CAN we do? What SHOULD we do? How do we force social change?

“I don’t know” would have been a serious answer. “There isn’t a quick fix” would have been a serious (though incomplete) answer. “Stop rewarding pastors who refuse to preach truth” would have been a serious answer (as you just mentioned in your comment). But the takeaway from your OP was “it’s simple: just have all these institutions beat down men/fathers half as much.” While it is true that such a change would indeed help the situation, as an answer to BPP’s question, it is akin to suggesting that the solution to teen pregnancy is for teens to have less sex. My response? Gee, that’s deep.

I understand the magnitude of the problem; I deal with it every day. I’m sure you understand it as well. That’s why it galled me to read your pithy OP, which did not even attempt to answer BPP’s question (“be specific; what can/should WE do”). How about you try again?

Funny that every other month, the church my wife and I are attending holds a series of courses on evangelism but afaik, there is nothing at all in courses about building up strong Christian families, how boys can learn to be men/husbands and how girls can learn to be women/wives. At the same time, there is some wringing of hands and twiddling of thumbs over the paucity of eligible young men and the abundance of unmarried single women in the church.

The only thing about what you’ve said here that is surprising is that your church is teaching courses in evangelism, which most, for all the lip service paid to it, never do in any discernibly organized or consistent fashion (if your church actually has a track record of doing it on an even semi-consistent basis, kudos to them). Otherwise, the description of the hand wringing about “where are all the eligible men for our precious daughters of the King? [insert appropriate tone of plaintive, shreiking, panicky whine as background] is the usual cognitive dissonance for which churchians have become the go-to experts.

Indeed the church we attend has been conducting evangelism courses which teach participants about the simple techniques (e.g., the bridge of life) in sharing the gospel to their families, relatives and friends. They have also organised “seeker-friendly” activities so that there are ample opportunities to invite “non-Christians” and get to know them. It’s just that despite these efforts, there has not been a discernable increase in the congregation size.

Going back a little on topic, there are more single women in this church than the men; in fact, there are more women than men in the congregation. According to my pastor, this has affected the leadership and the church board, viz., there are not enough men stepping up in leadership positions. I once casually shared my views with him that this may be because there are not that many opportunities for the younger men to be groomed for leadership or given the chance to lead in some very small ways. Months later, I shook my head when they announced that the leader of the organising committee for this year’s church camp is a single woman. When I asked the same pastor about Paul’s advice in 2 Timothy 2:12 in relation to his views about women in leadership, the word “culture” was again brought up.

The boy scouts of america was once about the exact points that were brought up by feeriker and chocking on red pills.My learning partner told me that they had already fallen into the Sitra Achra Dark side. I did not accept this at the time but now I see he was right. Nowadays the only option to learn how to be a man or a good woman is by learning medieval ethics {Musar.} In the Christian world that boils down to Aquinas, Augustine and Anslem,

there are not enough men stepping up in leadership positions. I once casually shared my views with him that this may be because there are not that many opportunities for the younger men to be groomed for leadership

Years ago, a Catholic blogger suggested that one reason for the priest shortage was that the church replaced altar boys with altar servers (same thing, but both boys and girls can join). He observed that boys generally prefer to do boy things. If a previously all-boys activity or group is opened to girls, then the boys will lose interest. Thus, the mere presence of girl alter servers discourages the boys from joining.

Many priests began as altar boys. Fewer altar boys means fewer priests down the line.

I am sorry that this is off topic but as America is doing it all wrong I really thought I ought to say something because for months now, and it will go on for another four months and even then it will take over two months to get the new team in place you have been trying to form a new government, and without any success. This is how you should do it: you hold a referendum; it does not matter what the topic is but something like ‘this house think B. H. Obama is always right’. The country vote and naturally don’t agree with such a proposition and thus suggests B.H.Obama LEAVE. B.H.Obama then resigns as does the man who maliciously put him up to the idea. The papers say that someone else who has an American mother has the support to form a new government of 82% of the country. This someone then withdraws having been knifed in the back by someone else who fancies his chances though everyone other than this latter person think the country would be better being run by a three-legged dog. This then leaves two girls, one of whom no one has ever heard of but the papers say that she is the new Iron Lady. The next day she withdraws from the contest in tears as certain people were very rude about her by observing that she is a Mother. Their being only one person left (who has yet to cry – or give birth) that person then performs a victory dance in one her many pairs of fuck-me heels and promises that whereas she had previously agreed with the original proposition she will now do the exact opposite. All this in less than three weeks and without having to trouble the electorate.

“Stop rewarding pastors who refuse to preach truth” would have been a serious answer (as you just mentioned in your comment). But the takeaway from your OP was “it’s simple: just have all these institutions beat down men/fathers half as much.”

You are trying too hard.

Any halfway-serious reading of Dalrock’s post would show that the first quote you list above is an obvious tactic to help achieve the second among many others). I think most sentient male beings here can conjure up and implement other methods of ‘starving the beast,’ as they used to say.

Does he really have to connect every.single.dot? How many bread crumbs does he have to leave for you? Or, are you just trying to pick a fight that doesn’t really exist (my bet)?

Oh, for cryin’ out friggin’ loud, this SJW bullshit has gone on for too long. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

If they’re planning on making a movie from this turd of a story idea, may it surpass the record set by Heaven’s Gate for the biggest box office loss in film history! Matter o’ fact, I hope it bankrupts whichever studio is stupid enough to produce it!

Feminism is all about appearances. Equality of the sexes (their raison d’être) does not have to be real it just has to look real. That’s why feminists will encourage women to have careers rather than stay at home with their children and then in the same breath demand employers pay women to stay at home with their children or worse demand the gov’t pay for industrialized child care (in which lower class women are hired to do the “dirty work” of raising kids for career moms). In the EU I hear some countries have 2 year maternity leave for each child, meaning mothers can be counted as “being in the workforce” all the while they are merely being paid to stay home with their kids. Then these stay at home moms can boast about how “progressive” they are and how feminist their society is encouraging other women who don’t know any better to actually leave their kids at home or with strangers while they are at work. It’s similar with this marriage business, where EU women pretend they are above marriage then live with the father of their kids and raise them together for basically their whole life, after which they compare themselves to actual single moms where the father is not even making child support payments. You see, they made it work “without marriage” so clearly a lack of marriage is not “real” the problem for these other ladies. It reminds me of those comparing the divorce rates of co-habitating couples and fornicators, but never virgins. That co-habitating couples have divorce rate slightly higher than fornicating couples who never live together that means co habitation is wrong to Christians, but “not that bad” to feminists, meanwhile that virgin couples have a significantly lower divorce rate than either group means absolutely nothing at all to anyone and is never mentioned except among “fundie” groups.

And that’s the dangerous thing about all this superficial pretend play feminism. It is used to attack family values in principle, to lower standards of even those claiming to stand for family, while being a complete and total sham in reality that is impractical and inefficient.

I dunno. This is how the movie industry commits suicide; they can fake everything but money, right? Also, it’s kind of funny to watch friends & family as these trans-everything movies keep coming out. The blue-pillers keep trying to buy into the feminist narrative while the feminists keep poking holes in it. Watch them quiver with unfocused eyes when you ask if they’re going to see Ballbusters!

“It was *hurk* had some good moments… Uh, I don’t watch movies for the politics…”

Funny thing is that the Comicbook industry has mostly been populated by hard Leftists since the 1940s. (And a lot of Jews, as well.) That the industry used to be fairly Pro-American just let’s people slide in their “Red on Red” attacks without anyone really noticing it was Left vs Left arguments/tone policing.

Much like Hollywood, it’s really important to understand that they’re all hypocrites. They understand most of why things actually “work” in their media field (sadly, “good script” is rarely important), but they can’t openly say why those things work, as it would run roughshod over their entire political ideology.

I dunno. This is how the movie industry commits suicide; they can fake everything but money, right? Also, it’s kind of funny to watch friends & family as these trans-everything movies keep coming out. The blue-pillers keep trying to buy into the feminist narrative while the feminists keep poking holes in it. Watch them quiver with unfocused eyes when you ask if they’re going to see Ballbusters!

I hear you can make tons of money shorting stocks of companies when they go full SJW. You have to be quick, though.

1) The writer is barely competent.
2) The writer’s hamster is working hilariously fast in the piece.
3) Imgur has less animated gifs than that piece. Ugh.
4) It’s effectively, “don’t call them mistresses!” and a how-to guide to be a Mistress.
5) RichDeltas.com should be the website’s name.

The problem is with stupid women that buy into the feminist lies and nonsense….

Actually, no. The problem is with the stupid men that support feminism either overtly or covertly, deliberately or out of ignorance. Without this monster riding on their readily available backs, it would have sunk Iong ago in the abyss. Take out the men’s support for feminism, and the Feminist House of Cards collapses in no time.
I once had an argument with a female colleague about the evils of feminism, and the injustice of many marital laws out there. She said as-a-mater-of-factly: “All of those laws were enacted and are being enforced by men”. As much as I hated to admit it, she was 100% right.
Men like Obama and Biden are the culprits. God help us Hillary does not become president. She will tighten the already tight noose across the neck of hapless men out there. All with the eager support of support of ball-less men.

@chokingonredpills
“eligible young men and the abundance of unmarried single women in the church.”

You worded that perfectly. There are some (I would say may) eligible young men.
Most of the women there however are only “single women”; they are not eligible young women. 99% of them do not demonstrate an interest in being the kind of woman that is obedient to the Scriptures (e.g. clothes, virginity Deut 22, long hair 1 Cor 11, self-controlled and willing to work at her husband’s home Titus 2), and are thus not eligible for Biblical marriage.

“99% of them do not demonstrate an interest in being the kind of woman that is obedient to the Scriptures (e.g. clothes, virginity Deut 22, long hair 1 Cor 11, self-controlled and willing to work at her husband’s home Titus 2), and are thus not eligible for Biblical marriage.”

I surmise that they are not demonstrating the interest because it was never talked about, preached or modelled in church and the greater society (e.g., culture, television, newspapers and magazine). But we do have an abundance of disrespect, doofus men and female porn almost everywhere you look.

When we get to the Bible, everything you mentioned (e.g., clothes and long hair) can be explained in a word — culture. That it is incorrect to apply these passages of Scripture just by reading them and not studying the context of the culture of that time. It’s disappointing that Deut 22 or Ecclesiastes or Proverbs or any book from the OT that points to the nature of women is summarily dismissed because women were treated like property of men then and “this doesn’t apply today since they are equal with men.” Any effort to engage in a proper debate is thwarted because I am a layman and never attended, let alone, graduated from a Bible school or seminary.

When we get to the New Testament, suddenly Rome, Phillipia, Thessalonica, Ephesus and Corinth become one massive, homogenic cultural region. Paul was giving advice to Timothy because a certain religion allowed women to speak in those days and therefore what he wrote in 1 Timothy 2:12 no longer applies today. (I could have asked him about Titus, but I was tired and felt like any attempt to discuss would be a fool’s errand).

I am flabbergasted by how the argument becomes so convoluted and embroiled in a tangle of culture, region and geography in some Scripture but demands are made in some others for direct reading and interpretation. In my two decades of being a Christian, I have only heard one pastor (at a youth camp) preach to young women about how they should dress and that their undergarments must never be shown in public. It wasn’t just widespread disgust among the young teenaged girls. Even our female youth leaders were disgusted by his sermon. Suffice to say, he was never invited back again for any worship service.

You should ask her to cite specifics in the New Testament, which backs up this strange conclusion. I’ve read the whole thing, never seen it in there (though, of course, I might have missed that verse).

@RPL I went into that movie (at the discount theater) expecting to be disappointed. So it wasn’t too painful, I did wonder why someone like Eva Green, whose attractiveness is in her face, went with the generic boob job…she’s a bit of a loon though, so no trying to make sense of such decisions I suppose.

Any effort to engage in a proper debate is thwarted because I am a layman and never attended, let alone, graduated from a Bible school or seminary.

I look forward to the day when someone with more resources and time on their hands than I have will put together a complete exposé of just how full of heretical rot the typical Bible college or seminary is today. While such an expose would probably not turn on one single dim light bulb in the crania of any churchian or change any brainwashed “minds,” it would still lay bare the ugly truth for all the world to see.

I assert without reservation that the only thing seminaries/Bible colleges do today is deliberately lead people astray and propagate toxic churchian heresy (have you ever suffered under a Baptist “pastor” who is a Bob Jones “University” graduate? If that place were to destroy any more brain cells than it already does, its “graduates” would be vegetables on life support). Their only redeeming qualities that I can see is that at least SOME of them offer halfway decent courses in Hebrew and Greek, but you sure as heck don’t need such an institution for that anymore.

You should ask her to cite specifics in the New Testament, which backs up this strange conclusion. I’ve read the whole thing, never seen it in there (though, of course, I might have missed that verse).

If she’s like most churchian wives there’s a two-inch layer of dust on her Bible and the pages are stuck together.

As for asking her for any “specifics” from the Bible she doesn’t read, the go-to response is generally something along the lines of “our pastor says it’s true, and that’s good enough for me. He IS a PASTOR, isn’t he?”

From the photo, these women are typically delusional American women. Delusional if they imagine they are Sugar Baby material. The photo shows post-wall women with fat arms, thick ankles, short lesbian haircuts, and hideous tattoos.

I don’t think any rich man would want them as mistresses. A rich man can demand at least an 8, if not a 9 or a 10. These women are 4s, 3s and even 2s.

Yet the article advises these cows to be demanding, to set boundaries, to be aware of their own amazing self-worth, even to string along a man without sex while extracting money. As though any successful man seeking a mistress would pant longingly after this herd.

If the woman giving this seminar had any ethics, she’d turn away most of these “students,” for the same reason that an ethical pilot would refuse money from a blind person seeking flying lessons.

These prospective Sugar Babies will never achieve their whoring dreams. They expect fit, firm, rich Alphas, with maybe a touch of gray. But they won’t get rich Alphas. They won’t even get rich Deltas. They’ll get an elderly Delta on social security, willing to buy dinner at a family restaurant.

>>>”We are complete with or without a mate, with or without a child.
“We get to decide for ourselves what is beautiful when it comes to our bodies. That decision is ours and ours alone.
“Let’s make that decision for ourselves and for the young women in this world who look to us as examples.
“We don’t need to be married or mothers to be complete. We get to determine our own ‘happily ever after’ for ourselves.”

Many priests began as altar boys. Fewer altar boys means fewer priests down the line.

This is a part of it. Another is smaller family size. In the past, when Catholic families had traditionally large families, it was not uncommon to take the, ahem, harder to marry-off children and put them into the priesthood or the convent, depending on their sex — not a big deal when you have 4 or 6 other kids to begin with, and they all marry and produce large families of grandchildren. When you only have 1-2 kids, almost no-one wants their kid to be a Catholic priest and therefore have no grandchildren.

From Wikipedia: The Shepherding Movement (sometimes called the “Discipleship Movement”) was an influential and controversial movement within some British and American charismatic churches. It emerged in the 1970s and early 1980s. The doctrine of the movement emphasized the “one another” passages of the New Testament, and the mentoring relationship described in the Second Epistle to Timothy.

If my memory serves me correctly, ALL decisions were made by the pastor for families. It seems to be a distortion of submission. There were a lot of kooky movements in charismatic circles back in the ’70s-80’s. The “pastor>husband>wife” dynamic may be a remnant of this movement.

Strategy or tactics are useless against this system. Its run by lunatics, supported by losers and freaks that need it, and attacks the only ones who can maintain a stable society, which would be people like you. It will collapse, it must. Any truly capable person is purposely prevented from entering the system. What cannot continue won’t. For the Marxists, its never been about fairness, equality or rights. For them its about power, and just about power. When you see feckless losers like Hillary, Obama, Ketchup boy Kerry, Algore, etc., etc., etc., what you see are weak incapable idiots who need power just to keep people from ridiculing and laughing at them and their pathetic loser lives.
Destroying this system, means starving the beast, pay as little to it as possible. Lower your tax bills, work off the books, and don’t support the Big Corporations that put these traitors into office. Boycott them all, there are no “GOOD” Big Businesses anymore. When the system collapses, I shall remove the head of the snake. It doesn’t matter how big the body is, the head is the only vital part holding it together. Its a rather small group. What if I told you there was probably only a hundred at the top? With only a couple hundred assistants? You would find it hard to believe, no doubt. BUT ITS TRUE.

“I am flabbergasted by how the argument becomes so convoluted and embroiled in a tangle of culture, region and geography in some Scripture but demands are made in some others for direct reading and interpretation.”

Biblical interpretation is EASY to understand. However you have to twist it to favor women because today that is how it will be interpreted. If women are only allowed to teach other women then the mandate will be interpreted that ONLY women can teach other women. If, in the same sentence, women are instructed they should NOT teach men then the mandate will be interpreted that this doesn’t apply today because we are equal now.

Consider the much ballyhooed and misinterpreted statement of Jesus that you cannot divorce except for grounds of adultery. Guess what? THAT IS NOT WHAT HE SAID! The word for adultery is Mocheia (sic) and that is NOT the word used. Instead ALL interpreters have used the Greek word Porneo to explain the divorce exception. Porneo refers to ANY sin, especially a sexual sin. Denying husband sex and playing the starve him to take control game is a SIN according to multiple Biblical authors. Thus…denying a husband sex is “Porneo” and grounds for divorce according to Jesus.

Of course that is the REAL interpretation of His words.

The current interpretation is that women should not and MUST NOT submit to their husbands because they must be strong warriors for Christ. Men should not and MUST NOT expect any fulfillment of carnal desires in marriage unless he has sufficiently pleased she who is purer and closer to God. All Hail the most wonderful and powerful moist vagina. Amen.

>>The best way to a man’s wallet is through his heart. I’d say no sex for the first month.

>> it is possible to commodify your flirtation, companionship, and attention, if you don’t necessarily want to sleep with a potential Daddy.

>>You’re more likely to get cash out of your Sugar Daddy if you ask for money to help with specific costs: car payment, cell phone bill, student loan payments, etc. Successful business-type Daddies also respond well to requests for “an investment” into your business venture, be it your lifestyle blog or your web series.

>>you obviously have a moneyed human in your clutches while flirting in the field. How do you broach the subject of Sugaring? Chelsea suggests using the phrase “mutually beneficial dating.”

Does ANYBODY think these women are anything but whores. Strike that! Whores are at least honest. These cunts want to maintain the facade of being a girlfriend, playing sexual denial games, flirting, and getting free dinners WHILE getting paid to bang who they like.

Somebody please explain to me the difference between dating the average girl today, being a Sugar Baby, and being a filthy cheating slut/whore? Seems they are all the same thing. The exact same thing.

“…as feminism and the destruction of the family break down the machinery of our society, it will only become harder to maintain our current levels of anti father diligence”

As the machinery of our society continues to break down, it will become less necessary to implement an anti-father zeitgeist as there will be less and less fathers.

Gynocentrism is driven on characteristics of female biology….female fear and envy of men. These traits, based in biology, can never be satisfied. No matter how much misandry infects society, it will never be enough. It will grind forward until it can grind no more.

Fathers rights > best interests of the children Until laws revert to this model, the grind continues

I shall remove the head of the snake. It doesn’t matter how big the body is, the head is the only vital part holding it together. Its a rather small group. What if I told you there was probably only a hundred at the top? With only a couple hundred assistants? You would find it hard to believe, no doubt. BUT ITS TRUE.

And when you “remove” them, there will be thousands of other individuals waiting to take their places. This is what Marcuse talked about in one-dimensional man. We live in a technocracy, and specific people are less important than the apparatus itself.

So how to fight the apparatus? We don’t try to topple it directly. That just gives it credibility. Instead, we ignore it. We starve it. We give it the minimum amount of time and money and energy that we must to get by, and we start building the infrastructure of the healthy society that will replace it.

The status quo is riddled with internal contradictions. Dalrock (the author of this blog) gets that. That’s why I read here. We don’t need to kill people or blow shit up. In fact, if we do that, we end up feeding into the system and propping it up (it’s diabolical, when you think about it). To be really effective, we drop out.

And astonishingly, as late as 1964, the labor force participation rate for Swedish women remained steady at 30 percent, lower even than the American figure for that last baby-booming year. Only 25,000, or a mere three percent, of Swedish preschool children were in public day-care centers. As two feminist analysts would later admit, the “increasing attention extended to working women [in Sweden] did not result from an overwhelming constituency demand from women themselves.”